I'm sure that I'm not the only person who feels this way. How can the "National Football League" continue to call itself that with a team in London...or Mexico City? This is our game...for our fans. Let the Euro's have their soccer.

The upcoming Pats' game in London against Tampa Bay is charged as a Tampa "home" game. But suppose it was the other other way around...and it was scheduled as a Patriots' "home" game. How would season ticket holders feel about that? Wouldn't they demand a discount due to the one less game? Is it fair to that NFL team that they have one less home game?

How 'bout the obvious travel problems, should London get a team? The London Fog, or whatever they choose to call themselves, would have a brutal travel schedule, even if all their road games were played on the East Coast.

What division would they end up in? Likely the AFC East...with Miami perhaps moving to the AFC South (to make travel less burdensome on London and Miami franchises).

What about the draft? Players selected by London would basically be forced to move from the US to England...or maintain two homes. Are there any potential constitutional issues there? What player would want to play for London?

How many NFL fans would be thrilled at the prospect of the SB being played in England? If Europe wants football...let them start the EFL (European Football League).

Yes...theres' money to be made in Europe. But overexpansion has damaged both the NBA and NHL. Is it worth it for the NFL to risk alienating longtime fans to chase a buck? If American fans due to overexpansion start to develop an "I could care less" attitude, the NFL will lose far more than it gains by entering the European market.

My thought is that what this guy Kirkwood would like and what he is likely to get will surely be two different things.

It's all well and good for the NFL to scheudle a visit once a year in hopes of kick-starting merchandise sales -- I really can't see what other purpose these games serve, other than throwing an inadequate bone to expatriate fans or whatever actual fan base exists in Europe.

Scheduling more games in London every year will certainly raise the hackles of owners who will be asked to foot the bill for travel and sundry expenses, and actually expanding the league to include a team in London is a logistical nightmare that is simply not worth the trouble.

I don't doubt that the commisioner will string the BBC along with vague promises of "future considerations," but my guess is that these international games will remain merely an occasional nuisance that each team, in its turn, will have to put up with as the price to pay for topping off the league's coffers in a market where fountains that spew money are becoming harder and harder to find.

The other major sports have teams in Canada, so the issue of players having to be in another country probably isn't an issue. My problems with London are mostly related tot he travel time and time zone change. It will be tough on the teams. I don't think that's too big a challenge though.

The most valid reason against it in my opinion is that the NFL does risk diluting its value trying to put it everywhere, all of the time. It's not just the London move, it's also the desire to expand the regular season to 18 games. I'll use a somewhat silly analogy. Remember when we were kids how the cartoons only played on Saturday mornings? We all looked forward to Saturday mornings. Now they have them on 24/7 and kids just don't look forward to them anymore. They're just ordinary TV. Well, it's the same with everything else too. If the NFL saturates our lives too much, it will lose "some" of its appeal. They need to strike a good balance, and I would argue they have that right now.

What happens when west coast teams have to travel there? Do you try to give them the bye week beforehand? Do you try to give them a bye week afterwards to recover?

It took me 6 hours to get from Logan to San Francisco, and apparently it takes 6 hours to get from Logan to London.

That's a hell of a trip, especially because flying east is much more difficult than flying west (shortens your day by flying opposite the sun as opposed to flying west in the same direction as the sun).

We had a huge conversation about this back when the Tampa-NE game was announced.

While I'm delighted that my team is playing in my town this weekend, and while the game sold out in 6 minutes, I don't see the idea of staging 4 games a season in London (as the head of NFL UK wants) being remotely realistic. 2 games a season would probably be sustainable in terms of selling tickets, but no more than that.

As for playing regular season games abroad at all, I'm not a huge fan of it (despite them playing on my doorstep) - but the NFL is looking to expand its reach globally (as the Premier League has done over here), so I don't see this annual occurrence stopping any time soon.

What happens when west coast teams have to travel there? Do you try to give them the bye week beforehand? Do you try to give them a bye week afterwards to recover? It took me 6 hours to get from Logan to San Francisco, and apparently it takes 6 hours to get from Logan to London. That's a hell of a trip, especially because flying east is much more difficult than flying west (shortens your day by flying opposite the sun as opposed to flying west in the same direction as the sun).Posted by NickC1188

San Diego played here in London last season, and I think they had their bye week afterwards to recover. It's a very long trip across 8 time zones, which makes for a bit of a logistical nightmare.

I expect the Pats to have got over their jet lag by game time (we're 5 hours ahead, although the clocks go back this weekend) - after all, it's much the same distance for the Pats as heading over to the west coast?

Should definatly not have teams permanitly in Europe, you guys covered on why. but i dont mind 1 or 2 games a yr. as far as logistically the teams arnt shelling out the money to pay for these trips. The league pays the "home" team as a sell out and pays for the travel and lodging for both teams. with the amount the NFL makes in profit it can afford to pay it.Sky Sports covers the game for the UK so im sure theres some deal going on there.The argument for teams living abroad such as canadian teams, that isnt the best comparison. canada is still on the same continent and the cities arnt too far from US borders. I can speak from experience, living in the UK, is a whole different ball game. And with the exchange rate at what it is, it would be expensive.

I'm sure that I'm not the only person who feels this way. How can the "National Football League" continue to call itself that with a team in London...or Mexico City? This is our game...for our fans. Let the Euro's have their soccer. The upcoming Pats' game in London against Tampa Bay is charged as a Tampa "home" game. But suppose it was the other other way around...and it was scheduled as a Patriots' "home" game. How would season ticket holders feel about that? Wouldn't they demand a discount due to the one less game? Is it fair to that NFL team that they have one less home game? How 'bout the obvious travel problems, should London get a team? The London Fog, or whatever they choose to call themselves, would have a brutal travel schedule, even if all their road games were played on the East Coast. What division would they end up in? Likely the AFC East...with Miami perhaps moving to the AFC South (to make travel less burdensome on London and Miami franchises). What about the draft? Players selected by London would basically be forced to move from the US to England...or maintain two homes. Are there any potential constitutional issues there? What player would want to play for London? How many NFL fans would be thrilled at the prospect of the SB being played in England? If Europe wants football...let them start the EFL (European Football League). Yes...theres' money to be made in Europe. But overexpansion has damaged both the NBA and NHL. Is it worth it for the NFL to risk alienating longtime fans to chase a buck? If American fans due to overexpansion start to develop an "I could care less" attitude, the NFL will lose far more than it gains by entering the European market. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/23/london-hopes-for-four-games-per-year-by-2012/ Thoughts?Posted by TexasPat3

You have a clear record of being agianst anything that is not in your comfort zone so I wouldn't expect anything else. In terms of constitutional issue you can always play in the UFL if you don't like it. In terms of logistics I think you could do it, Seatle travels a crapload I don't see how this would be much different.

2. Season ticket holders can opt out of the ticket or they can purchase the ticket as part of their regular package (a huge ticket to be sure - it doesn't matter what teams are in the game, there is a list of fans that would fill up several games in London per season.) or they can purchase separate packages from the team that include airfare and hotel.

3. I agree about expansion - it would dilute the product. It is the same reason I am against an 18 game season.

4. Seriously, Constitutional issues. You aren't forcing anyone to play the game. You also seem to be forgetting that a lot of players actually already maintain two homes - one where the team is and one where they might prefer to live with their family.

I'm sure that I'm not the only person who feels this way. How can the "National Football League" continue to call itself that with a team in London...or Mexico City? This is our game...for our fans. Let the Euro's have their soccer. The upcoming Pats' game in London against Tampa Bay is charged as a Tampa "home" game. But suppose it was the other other way around...and it was scheduled as a Patriots' "home" game. How would season ticket holders feel about that? Wouldn't they demand a discount due to the one less game? Is it fair to that NFL team that they have one less home game? How 'bout the obvious travel problems, should London get a team? The London Fog, or whatever they choose to call themselves, would have a brutal travel schedule, even if all their road games were played on the East Coast. What division would they end up in? Likely the AFC East...with Miami perhaps moving to the AFC South (to make travel less burdensome on London and Miami franchises). What about the draft? Players selected by London would basically be forced to move from the US to England...or maintain two homes. Are there any potential constitutional issues there? What player would want to play for London? How many NFL fans would be thrilled at the prospect of the SB being played in England? If Europe wants football...let them start the EFL (European Football League). Yes...theres' money to be made in Europe. But overexpansion has damaged both the NBA and NHL. Is it worth it for the NFL to risk alienating longtime fans to chase a buck? If American fans due to overexpansion start to develop an "I could care less" attitude, the NFL will lose far more than it gains by entering the European market. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/23/london-hopes-for-four-games-per-year-by-2012/ Thoughts?Posted by TexasPat3

I for one am not in favor of the NFL in London or any other country for alot of reasons. Logistics would be a nightmare for one. Travel on one team would be to much and they would be at a huge disadvantage with losing practice time to travel. It would be way to much of a gamble hoping a team could get in through bad weather coming or going to London. We know its all about money . Goodell says he would like to see a Super Bowl there in 5-6 years. If THEY EVER PLAY A SUPER BOWL OVERSEAS THEY HAVE LOST ME AS A FAN FOREVER. WE MADE THIS GAME WHAT IT IS AND THEY WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM US AND GIVE IT TO A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO COULD CARE LESS. I just hope we go home healthy and with no big injuries.............Pats 44- Bucs 10

1. The game isn't "ours" and it is silly to think that way. 2. Season ticket holders can opt out of the ticket or they can purchase the ticket as part of their regular package (a huge ticket to be sure - it doesn't matter what teams are in the game, there is a list of fans that would fill up several games in London per season.) or they can purchase separate packages from the team that include airfare and hotel. 3. I agree about expansion - it would dilute the product. It is the same reason I am against an 18 game season. 4. Seriously, Constitutional issues. You aren't forcing anyone to play the game. You also seem to be forgetting that a lot of players actually already maintain two homes - one where the team is and one where they might prefer to live with their family. Posted by EnochRoot

Football truly is Americas passion...........I disagree with you..........we the fans who pay the money and Amercian players made football what it is....why do we have to push our American traditions on other countries.........they could care less....what happened to NFL Europe? That crashed and burned but we are going to tell 80 players to leave there families and go live in joly old England for a year . Furthermore.........if you were a player in the NFL would you be willing to sign a 5 year contract to go play in England ? you might for the sake of this converastion but I bet you have more no's then yes's.............England is a bad idea......

In Response to Re: Don't Want London in the NFL : Football truly is Americas passion...........I disagree with you..........we the fans who pay the money and Amercian players made football what it is....why do we have to push our American traditions on other countries.........they could care less....what happened to NFL Europe? That crashed and burned but we are going to tell 80 players to leave there families and go live in joly old England for a year . Furthermore.........if you were a player in the NFL would you be willing to sign a 5 year contract to go play in England ? you might for the sake of this converastion but I bet you have more no's then yes's.............England is a bad idea......Posted by EASON11

I am not saying it needs to be pushed to other countries as you seem to think I said. I am saying it is ridiculous to think of it as "ours" in the context the original poster used the term.

I am also not advocating the NFL have a franchise in Europe as you seem to think I wrote. I specifically said I was against that. It was in the second paragraph though so you may not have gotten that far.

Yes, it is American, but we, the fans, don't own it. It is a business. A big one. It isn't "ours". It doesn't matter that we "pay for it". It doesn't matter that "American football players made it what it is". That isn't even part of my point.

In reading your response, it is pretty clear you mistook my post as saying that the game belongs to the world (by writing it isn't ours) and I am advocating expansion. Please reread it with a more critical eye.

The rest of your post seems to be taking issue with something I have not addressed. But, since you brought it up, if you were an NFL player, would you really want to be drafted by the Lions? Don't pretend there aren't turd franchises in the US that have negatives for many players. The reality is that if you want to play in the NFL, you start with the draft. IF you are drafted by a team you don't want to be in, too bad. If that team trades you, it trades you. Generally the only choice you have is to not play. (See: Seymour, Richard) If my company decided to move my job to Tampa because they are taking advantage of tax breaks, I can move to Tampa or find another job.

My thought is that what this guy Kirkwood would like and what he is likely to get will surely be two different things. It's all well and good for the NFL to scheudle a visit once a year in hopes of kick-starting merchandise sales -- I really can't see what other purpose these games serve, other than throwing an inadequate bone to expatriate fans or whatever actual fan base exists in Europe. Scheduling more games in London every year will certainly raise the hackles of owners who will be asked to foot the bill for travel and sundry expenses, and actually expanding the league to include a team in London is a logistical nightmare that is simply not worth the trouble. I don't doubt that the commisioner will string the BBC along with vague promises of "future considerations," but my guess is that these international games will remain merely an occasional nuisance that each team, in its turn, will have to put up with as the price to pay for topping off the league's coffers in a market where fountains that spew money are becoming harder and harder to find.Posted by prairiemike

I think it's unfair for season-ticket holders that pay top dollar to lose a game on foreign soil. Leave it to cheapo kraft!

I'm sure that I'm not the only person who feels this way. How can the "National Football League" continue to call itself that with a team in London...or Mexico City? This is our game...for our fans. Let the Euro's have their soccer. The upcoming Pats' game in London against Tampa Bay is charged as a Tampa "home" game. But suppose it was the other other way around...and it was scheduled as a Patriots' "home" game. How would season ticket holders feel about that? Wouldn't they demand a discount due to the one less game? Is it fair to that NFL team that they have one less home game? How 'bout the obvious travel problems, should London get a team? The London Fog, or whatever they choose to call themselves, would have a brutal travel schedule, even if all their road games were played on the East Coast. What division would they end up in? Likely the AFC East...with Miami perhaps moving to the AFC South (to make travel less burdensome on London and Miami franchises). What about the draft? Players selected by London would basically be forced to move from the US to England...or maintain two homes. Are there any potential constitutional issues there? What player would want to play for London? How many NFL fans would be thrilled at the prospect of the SB being played in England? If Europe wants football...let them start the EFL (European Football League). Yes...theres' money to be made in Europe. But overexpansion has damaged both the NBA and NHL. Is it worth it for the NFL to risk alienating longtime fans to chase a buck? If American fans due to overexpansion start to develop an "I could care less" attitude, the NFL will lose far more than it gains by entering the European market. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/10/23/london-hopes-for-four-games-per-year-by-2012/ Thoughts?Posted by TexasPat3

I think it's unfair for season-ticket holders that pay top dollar to lose a game on foreign soil. Leave it to cheapo kraft!

Folks, this is a business. As a business it needs to add more customers, (FANS) each year or it will die. Cost continue to go up each year, so much revenues. I am sure when the AFL started and the NFL joined up, The NFL fans said, I don't want my team going to the AFL teams to play football.

Growth is good, go see the stupid thread about is Kraft paying enough.

In Response to Re: Don't Want London in the NFL : ya u cant be serious, i almost bought the whole anti kraft bit, but when u pretend to not notice ur picture being that reedonk.. it gives ur act awayPosted by BillsHoody

One thing I haven't seen adressed in very much depth is potential fan support for such a venture.

Filling up Wembley once a year for a curiosity is not the same as filling it on a regular basis for a sport that would never compete with the local passion -- which is footy -- that is another thing entirely.

NFL Europe was a magnificent flop.

Why do I keep hearing this insistent buzz that Europe is clamoring for NFL football?

NFL Europe flopped. I am not against expanding the game per se, but where is the long term sustainability of a franchise in Europe? I don't know if it is wise to have a full-time team in Europe when Los Angeles doesn't even clamor for a team. They might as well put a team in Jacksonville, Florida or an NHL team in Phoenix. Oh... wait.

One thing I haven't seen adressed in very much depth is potential fan support for such a venture. Filling up Wembley once a year for a curiosity is not the same as filling it on a regular basis for a sport that would never compete with the local passion -- which is footy -- that is another thing entirely. NFL Europe was a magnificent flop. Why do I keep hearing this insistent buzz that Europe is clamoring for NFL football?Posted by prairiemike

I agree 100% - I can't see an NFL franchise in London being a sustainable proposition both in terms of local support and the logistical nightmare playing them would represent.

2 games per season tops is more than enough for London IMO - and I think those of us NFL fans that live here are more than lucky to get 1 game a year as it is.

The only reason the NFL would make any move towards this is in looking to expanding its reach globally (I would guess that non domestic revenue for the NFL is a fraction of that currently enjoyed by the Premier League, which is huge all over the world these days). Distorting the league by setting up a non domestic franchise is not the solution - it would fall flat on its face.

It's just like when they played English Premier League matches over here. Yes, the stadiums filled up and it was a grand old time, but does anyone really think a Premier League teams would survive over here long-term? I would love to see cricket and rugby union get exposure over here (get rid of Nascar and golf) but there is just not a big enough market for those things.

You have to take into consideration that with the dollar plummeting in value thanks to the Federal Reserve Scam, European investments are more attractive. So it makes sense for the owners to seek more revenue internationally - London, Beijing, everywhere.

And Tex, frankly, I am disappointed by the xenophobic tone of your post.